The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1887-09-15
AN ANSWER.
Mr.. Browning Comes Back With
Some Heavy Blows.


MoBEEr1E, Tex, September 2, 1887.
Hon. R. NJ. Hall, Commissioner General Land
Office, Austin, Texas:
DEAR SIB-Your open letter to me, of
date August IL, 1887, which appeared in
the daily newspapers of the state, pur-
porting to be a reply to my open letter of
August 3, 1887, to Gov. L. S. Ross, requires
some notice on my part, inasmuch as the
governor, by his silence, implicitly adopts
it as his reply.
My letter to the governor surely was
not intended to reflect upon the personal
integrity of any one, as l confined myself
to the one subject, the meaning of the
present land law, and its construction by
those whose duty it is to execute it. A
candid discussion of this subject ought to
be of interest to the people, because of
their direct interest in it, and the public
mind should not be thrown off its guard
by personalities calculated to mislead the
unwary. shall not indulge in them, but
briefly notice your treatment of the mat
ter in issue.
Your assertion that ''labored so per
sistently to mar, mutilate and defeat this
law while it was being framed" that my
vindication depended upon its failure, and
the insinuation that that was the motive
which impelled me to write to the COVER
nor, are somewhat tinctured with unkind-
ness. | seek no vindication at the ex
pense of my country; and as long as 1
have the strength you will find me battling
against any one who misinterprets her
laws to the detriment of her general well
fare. shall accredit to you good faith
in what you have done and will DO
in the future. l think that you
honestly mistake the meaning of
the law. Since you have made the
charge that I bitterly opposed the pass
age of this law, 1 must explain and refute
it or the natural inference would be that
by silence, implicitly confess its truth.
You will remember that you favored, yea,
labored to secure the passage of the bill as
it came from the senate to the house; that
you attended almost all, if not every COM
mittee meeting and the sessions of each
house, while it was under consideration,
and even followed the bill into the free
| conference committee room. Was this
not done to protect it as far as you could
from inroads that might be made into it
by amendments? l admit that 1 opposed
the passage of this bill in the shape it
came to us from the senate, and favored
the adoption of the house bill which l, in
common with many other members, con-
! sidered much wiser and more conserva-
tive measure; but this bill came to us
branded as the Administrations BILL"
which gave it Roadway impossible to
overcome. When the house adopted this
bill, instead of its own, l at once fell into
| he host I IN
feet the measure before passing it. True,
voted for Mr.. Garwood's amendment to
strike out the lease feature. The country
generally knows that l have always OPP
posed the leasing of these lands. l also
voted foe Mr.. Jones' amendment to strike
out the clause making all cases arising
under the law triable in the courts at Aus
tin. This did because l considered that
feature direct reflection upon the in
tegrity of my constituency, and danger
GUS innovation on the right of local
self-government. With the exception
of these two votes, a majority of
each house concurred in most, if not all,
of my votes upon the bill. l offered but
three amendments to the bill while it was
under consideration in the house. One of
these was to allow the drouth sufferers to
re-purchase their forfeited homes with
out loss to them; another was to require a
patent to issue upon any land sold under
it, without three years occupancy, when
ever town is established thereon; and
the third was to make the lands classed as
agricultural subject to sale at all times,
Notwithstanding they might be leased.
This last amendment makes it possible,
if the lands are fairly classified and
valued, for a settler to get foothold in
the country, 1T matters not how the law
is executed, and is in direct com pliance
with the democratic platform. All of
these amendments were adopted, and are
now parts of the law. | submit to a
generous public to say which of US had
a weather eye on the rights of the settler.
Before other defects in the bill could be
cured by appropriate amendments its
managers put 1t through the house under
the previous question. You will doubtless
remember that when the free conference
COMMITTEES, of which l was member,
had this bill under consideration, pointed
out defect in it, wherein it failed to
prescribe penalty in case a purchaser
did not reside upon the land for three
years, leaving it possible for innumerable
frauds to be perpetratcd by spectators
and pretended settlers. The committee
at once recognized the force of my sug-
gestion, and the chairman directed my
self and Senator Bell to draw
up an amendment to cover this
glaring defect in the bill,
which we did, making the land forfeit to
the state if the purchaser fails to reside
upon 1t for three consecutive years next
after his purchase. That amendment be-
came part of the law. These "mutila-
lions" were not in the bill when it came to
the house, still, you wanted it passed
without Change" This last amendment
makes it possible for the genuine, actual
settler only, to get the land, and thus res
culng it from the hands of the pretended
settler and land speculator. Can you or
those who Framed" and secured the |
enactment of the law point to where you
did more to protect the state and the &C
tual settler? After the free conference
committee had agreed upon its report,
you will perhaps remember that Senator
Mcdonald aud myself were directed to
superintend the enrolment of the law in
order that it might go to the governor for
his approval exactly as it passed both
houses of the legislature. This proves
that l was not regarded as the "bitter
enemy" of the bill. 1t should also be re-
membered that offered the amendment
which provided for subiecting the leased